I cannot
speak as an economist or a scientist. I simply speak as a
politician who wishes to unravel the economists’ and scientists’
arguments one way or another. I also try to sense the
motivations of each one of those who make statements on these
matters. Just twenty-two years ago, here in Havana, we had a
great number of meetings with political, union, peasant and
student leaders invited to our country as representatives of
these sectors. They all agreed that the most important problem
at that time was the enormous foreign debt accumulated by the
nations of Latin America in 1985. That debt amounted to 350
billion dollars. The dollar then had a higher purchasing power
than it does today.
A copy of the
outcome of those meetings was sent to all the world governments,
of course with some exceptions, because it might have seemed
insulting. At that time, the petrodollars had flooded the market
and the large transnational banks were virtually demanding that
the countries accept high loans. Needless to say, the people
responsible for the economy had taken on those commitments
without consulting anybody. That period coincided with the
presence of the most repressive and bloody governments this
continent has ever suffered, installed by imperialism. Large
sums were spent on weapons, luxuries and consumer goods. The
subsequent debt grew to 800 billion dollars while today’s
catastrophic dangers were being hatched, the dangers that weigh
upon a population that doubled in just two decades and along
with it, the number of those condemned to a life of extreme
poverty. Today, in the Latin American region, the difference
between the most favored population and the one with the lowest
income is the greatest in the world.
Many years before
the subjects of today’s debates were center stage, the struggles
of the Third World focused on equally agonizing problems like
the unequal exchange. Year after year it was discovered that the
price of the industrialized nations’ exports, usually
manufactured with our raw materials, would unilaterally grow
while our basic exports remained unchanged. The price of coffee
and cacao, just to mention two examples, was approximately 2,000
dollars a ton. A cup of coffee or a chocolate milkshake could
be bought in cities like New York for a few cents; today, these
cost several dollars, perhaps 30 or 40 times what they cost back
then. Today, the purchase of a tractor, a truck or medical
equipment require several times the volume of products that was
needed to import them back then; jute, henequen and other Third
World produced fibers that were substituted by synthetic ones
succumbed to the same fate. In the meantime, tanned hides,
rubber and natural fibers used in many textiles were being
replaced by synthetic materials derived from the sophisticated
petrochemical industry while sugar prices hit rock bottom,
crushed by the large subsidies granted by the industrialized
countries to their agricultural sector.
The former
colonies or neocolonies that had been promised a glowing future
after World War II had not yet awakened from the Bretton Woods
dream. From top to bottom, the system had been designed for
exploitation and plundering.
When consciousness
was beginning to be roused, the other extremely adverse factors
had not yet surfaced, such as the undreamed-of squandering of
energy that industrialized countries had fallen prey to. They
were paying less than two dollars a barrel of oil. The source of
fuel, with the exception of the United States where it was very
abundant, was basically in Third World countries, chiefly in the
Middle East but also in Mexico, Venezuela, and later in Africa.
But not all of the countries that by virtue of yet another white
lie classified as “developing countries” were oil producers,
since 82 of them are among the poorest and as a rule they must
import oil. A terrible situation awaits them if food stuffs are
to be transformed into biofuels or agrifuels, as the peasant and
native movements in our region prefer to call them.
Thirty years ago,
the idea of global warming hanging over our species’ life like a
sword of Damocles was not even known by the immense majority of
the inhabitants of our planet; even today there is great
ignorance and confusion about these issues. If we listen to the
spokesmen of the transnationals and their media, we are living
in the best of all possible worlds: an economy ruled by the
market, plus transnational capital, plus sophisticated
technology equals a constant growth of productivity, higher GDP,
higher living standards and every dream of the human species
come true; the state should not interfere with anything, it
should not even exist, other than as an instrument of the large
financial capital.
But reality is
hard-headed. Germany, one of the most highly industrialized
countries in the world, loses sleep over its 10 percent
unemployment. The toughest and least attractive jobs are taken
by immigrants who, desperate in their growing poverty, break
into industrialized Europe through any possible chink.
Apparently, nobody is taking note of the number of inhabitants
on our planet, growing precisely in the undeveloped countries.
More than 700
representatives of social organizations have just been meeting
in Havana to discuss various issues raised in this reflection.
Many of them set out their points of view and left indelible
impressions on us. There is plenty of material to reflect upon
as well as new events happening every day.
Even now, as a
consequence of liberating a terrorist monster, two young men,
who were fulfilling their legal duty in the Active Military
Service, anxious to taste consumerism in the United States,
hijacked a bus, crashed through one of the doors of the domestic
flights terminal at the airport, drove up to a civilian aircraft
and got on board with their hostages, demanding to be taken to
the United States. A few days earlier, they had killed a
soldier, who was standing guard, to steal two automatic weapons,
and in the plane they fired four shots that killed a brave
officer who, unarmed and held hostage in the bus, had attempted
to prevent the plane’s hijacking. The impunity and the material
gains that have rewarded any violent action against Cuba during
the last half-century encourage such events. It had been many
months since we had such an incident. All it needed was setting
a notorious terrorist free and once again death come calling at
our door. The perpetrators have not gone on trial yet because,
in the course of events, both were wounded; one of them was shot
by the other as he fired inside the plane, while they were
struggling with the heroic army officer. Now, many people abroad
are waiting for the reaction of our Courts and of the Council of
State, while our people here are deeply outraged with these
events. We really need a large dose of calmness and sangfroid to
confront these problems.
The apocalyptic
head of the empire declared more than five years ago that the
United States armed forces had to be on the ready to make
pre-emptive attacks on 60 or more countries in the world;
nothing less than one third of the international community.
Apparently, he is not satisfied with the death, the torture and
the uprooting of millions of people to seize their natural
resources and the product of their labors.
Meanwhile, the
impressive international meeting that just concluded in Havana
reaffirmed my personal conviction: every evil idea must be
submitted to devastating criticism, avoiding any concession.
Fidel Castro Ruz
May 7, 2007.